Re: [Health-dev] Replace DU by address (Was : Show the DU address in the main person info)

[Luis Falcon]

Hi there !
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:43:00 +0700
Cédric Krier <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 2016-04-18 13:55, Luis Falcon wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:29:51 +0700
> > Cédric Krier <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > Each person / patient assessment records the date along with
> > the current demographics (including the Domiciliary unit),
> > socioeconomic status, family functionality ... . Please see the
> > screenshots[1][2] showing the tree and form view.  
> 
> Sorry but it doesn't answer to the question, I don't think it is
> doable to create a record for every back and forward between 2 living
> locations like divorced children do. So I'm really talking about
> people having 2 living places at the *same time*. I think the
> examples are valid as there were not yet refuted.
> 

IMO ... yes, it  does answer, and I won't go again over them, since
this is getting quite reiterative. I invite you to review the
rationale behind the DU, as the person contact information.

By the way, if can you live at the same time in two places, you either
have magical, special powers, or you are going through an out-of-body
experience .. (just kidding) :P

> > > > It's important to know that GU Health Domiciliary Unit[1] and
> > > > Tryton address are two different concepts, that can perfectly
> > > > co-exist in their respective contexts, as explained  
> > > 
> > > For me, this conclusion is too fast. I see no argument in favor of
> > > separation which can not be solved in case of merge.  
> > 
> > A DU has to have demographic / epidemiological significance. It
> > must be unique (for example, a cadastral code) , it shows all the
> > members at any given time, it has the infrastructure materials, it
> > allows us to make surveys[3]
> > 
> > Currently, the address concept does not have those attributes.
> > 
> > Take the PO Box[4]: The Postal Office Box is a valid address, yet
> > it is not a DU.
> > 
> > Another example where we would use the address model is with
> > relatives living in another country. The address makes great contact
> > information , yet, we probably don't have the demographic /
> > infrastructure attributes to transform it into a DU.   
> 
> I never said that current address has all the needed fields but at
> least it has most of them and they can be added (and make required).
> This will reduce the duplication of functionalities and create
> synergy to improve both together.
> 

It's not a matter of adding more fields. It's a matter of understanding
that they are two different concepts and models, that can perfectly
coexist and even complement each other in some cases.

There is always room for improvement, but need to move on.

Bests,

Luis